Saturday, March 03, 2012

A couple of years ago I discussed the obsession among right-of-center political activists in the United States with Barack Hussein Obama.

At that time there was a constant drumbeat in conservative circles about Obama, almost to the exclusion of any other political topic. The Right focused on the horrible things that the president was doing, or his ineligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief, or the socialists and communists in his entourage, or his blatant sympathy for Muslim radicals.

However, as I said at the time, Obama is not the problem. He is the symptom of a deeper disease, one that will not be cured by simply kicking him out of office.

The situation hasn’t changed much over the past two years. In some ways the approaching election has just made things worse. Instead of Obama, right-wingers are now focused on the “horse race” among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. The media gleefully join in the obsession, highlighting every round of intramural fighting as Republicans engage in their time-hallowed quadrennial tradition, the Circular Firing Squad.

Romney… Gingrich… Santorum… or even Ron Paul — why do conservatives think any of these seasoned Washington insiders can delay by more than a nanosecond our country’s headlong plunge towards destruction?

What makes them think any of these suits has a chance of beating Obama?

The president’s policies have not helped the country recover from the Great Recession, and have in fact made it worse. His foreign policy has been disastrous, humiliating America, snubbing its allies, and encouraging its overseas enemies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the mullahs in Iran. He has insulted and denigrated ordinary Americans by blatantly favoring Islam and shutting out Christians and Jews.

Yet he still enjoys an approval rating of nearly 50%. Occasionally his numbers even spike above the 50% level.

That’s the problem.

After three years of experience with his policies and his behavior, nearly half the public still regards him favorably.

No, the problem is not Obama.

Part of the problem obviously lies with an American electorate that is so ignorant, so apathetic, or so indoctrinated by the media propaganda machine that it can still support this wretched man as President of the United States.

I look at the Rasmussen polls every day, and the trend line for Obama is always instructive. His star descended steadily for a while, then jerked upwards after the passage of Obamacare. It resumed falling not long afterwards, roughly mirroring the track of gasoline prices. The killing of Osama bin Laden gave the president a boost, but not for long. His ratings continued their downward trend until about six months ago, when they began a modest but noticeable improvement that continues even now.

Hmm. What happened about six months ago?Oh, yes, that’s right: Republicans started campaigning in earnest for the presidency.

The more media exposure these party hacks get, the better it looks for President Obama. Based on poll results, the Republicans would be well-advised to stop campaigning right now if they want even a fighting chance of regaining the Oval Office next January.

They’re a sorry bunch, those Republicans.

Mind you, I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter whether Romney or Obama sits in the big chair when Ahmadinejad begins his countdown to Armageddon — it does. I may even be willing to hold my nose yet again and vote for one of those GOP clowns, for that reason alone.

But it shouldn’t have to come to this. There should be a real choice, and there isn’t one. There hasn’t been a real choice since at least 1984.

A majority of Americans opposes the persecution of publicly-expressed Christianity. An even larger majority objects to open borders. More Americans oppose an ever-growing profligate government than favor it. And very few Americans approve of the politically correct nonsense that is shoved down their throats by the federal government, the media, and the educational establishment.

Yet there is never a meaningful political alternative at the national level. Republican or Democrat — it doesn’t matter. We still get more immigration, more calls for “amnesty”, a clueless foreign policy, and federally-mandated diversity education in the public schools.

You can keep the clothespin permanently on your nose, go down to the polling place every two years, and pull the lever by the “R”. But it makes no difference; the person you vote for will keep delivering the same old wheelbarrow loads of crap, decade after decade. The Republicans just wheel the barrow a little more slowly.

Both parties promote the same high-spending culture-destroying Progressive policies.

27
comments:

Anonymous
said...

Spot on Baron.

It's a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Neither listens to the American people whatsoever, instead it's to the bankers and fixers that can drop millions of dollars into their campaign coffers with just a few phone calls.

Yet there is never a meaningful political alternative at the national level. Republican or Democrat — it doesn’t matter. We still get more immigration, more calls for “amnesty”, a clueless foreign policy, and federally-mandated diversity education in the public schools.

Was just doing a search for information on the status of the Christian pastor in Iran. I came across this, which made me think of your post:

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

---H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun July 26, 1920

Unfortunately it is just that adornment of the Oval Office which has occurred with great frequency in the time since Mencken wrote those words. Yet somehow we survived those other White House inmates. If we don't manage to get past this one, it's because the current resident has made it clear he hates America...and doesn't think much of the rest of the West, either. With two dedicated communists for parents, how could it be elsewise and he still remain a loyal son?-----------------No. No news to be had about the fate of Youcef Nadarkhani. But I found this on a Pakistani site:

Here's your answer, written in the 1950s, it was taught on politics courses 30 years ago, but only at the advanced stages of the courses:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Power-Elite-Wright-Mills/dp/0195133544

Those who really hold power are able to control the political parties. The parties and elections are a puppet show arranged by the power elite. Forget patriotism and class, it's all about money, resources and globalisation.

What was also taught in these advanced courses was this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Sociological-Oligarchical-Tendencies-Democracy/dp/1150897414

Michels was an anarchist who analysed the ways in which political parties come to represent the interests of the few in control, no matter how revolutionary and democratic the goals of the party might be. The same can be said for trade unions (mass immigration was against their workers interests, but in the interests of trade union leaders -- with zero unemployment, individual workers qua individuals have the power to dictate their terms). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Upon realising his "iron law of oligarch" Michels gave up being an anarchist, and became a leading light in Mussolini's fascist party. His view was, if you can't beat them, you might as well join them.

It doesn't even look like Michels' book is even in print by an established publisher any more. A true sign that these things are no longer taught. Sociology is not in itself necessarily left-wing. Socio-economica analysis can be applied to the higher echelons of society as well as the lower echelons.

And here's another book that indicates where globalisation leads politically, economically and socially: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Trap-Sir-James-Goldsmith/dp/0333642244

Democracy is a notion that really only has any sense within a nation-state, just like "international law" is nonsense on stilts (it's principally just English contract law, and no more). Globalisation is hollowing out democracy and politics even more than in the early 20th century. It's just a further step in the same process.

When billionaire capitalists, anarchists and ecologists are all in agreement, their views are worth looking at. Goldsmith's predictions are showing every sign of coming true.

And in my view, islamisation is part of this. Until I got involved 3 years ago in studying what was going on with islamisation, I hadn't given any thought to C. Wright Mills or Roberto Michels. But a good education is never wasted.

Yet there is never a meaningful political alternative at the national level. Republican or Democrat — it doesn’t matter. We still get more immigration, more calls for “amnesty”, a clueless foreign policy, and federally-mandated diversity education in the public schools.

True. But considering that the US is effectively ruled by judicial diktat rather than by the executive or legislature, it greatly matters who gets to pick the judges. If it's a choice between judges like Roberts and Alito on one hand and Kagan and Sotomayor on the other, then it's pretty important to make sure that it's a Republican president who gets to make that choice.

Mind you, I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter whether Romney or Obama sits in the big chair when Ahmadinejad begins his countdown to Armageddon — it does.

Iran has no nuclear weapons and there is not a shred of evidence that they are anywhere close to developing them. They also have no ICBMs to launch these non-existent nukes anywhere near America. Ahmadinejad's countdown to Armageddon belongs in the realm of fantasy along with the Mayan calendar's prediction of the impending end of the world on December 21, 2012.

But on this issue it makes no difference whether Romney or Obama sits in the big chair. Just watch what happens this week when they both get their marching orders from Netanyahu and AIPAC. Yet another unnecessary war based on false pretenses is being foisted on the American people by their hostile elites, the will of the people and the national interest be damned.

Again, this is RonaldBAgain, it is virtually impossible to post a comment under typepad. And there is no way to send a comment to a webmaster.

Let me take up the major theme: that the American people are deeply ignorant and don't know the difference between Obama and Osama, and don't care.

I think dymphna's quote says a lot: "As democracy is perfected". The fact is, the framers of the Constitution never meant for the US to be a democracy. They specifically set up branches of the government to control populist sentiment and to ensure that the government had to function within constitutional constraints.

The history of US government within the last 150 years, maybe longer, has been the steady demolition of the republican structures. Some examples are the popular election of senators, the limitation of campaign contributions by individuals, the requirement for universal access to party primaries, the requirement of proportional racial representation in political districting, and the enforcement of racial quotas.

It is actually not such a huge leap from the writing of the US Constitution to the direct election of a moron as President. The writers of the Federalist Papers saw clearly that a democratic government would be a fatal blow to stable and effective government.

The fatal error the Republicans made was to put all of their efforts into making Obama fail as President rather than working with him to shape policy. The result is that the Republicans have alienated almost every constitutency. Meanwhile, Obama has slogged along and made some significant accomplishments without any support from the Republicans. America needs the Republican Party like a fish needs a bicycle.

I can't believe that you lump Ron Paul in with the rest of the Republicrats. Why would you distrust the media so much yet believe them about Ron Paul? I know the US government is a reality show, but let's get a genuine man like Ron Paul in the oval office and at least try something different. The worst that could happen is he’ll expose the matrix.

I like Ron Paul when it comes to issues like the Fed, no doubt about it.

But the man has been in D.C. for decades, and no one does that without delivering the bacon back home. Check his entire voting record, not just the hot-button items like the Fed etc.

No one -- and I mean no one -- stays in Washington for that long without joining forces with the grease machine, at least part of the time. It's a nice idea to believe there are exceptions, but there aren't.

A few thoughts;The unemployment rate is dropping because people are leaving the work force or, put another way, haven't been able to find a job and so took early retirement or SSDI. The same number of Americans are employed today as were employed in 08' when the nominal unemployment number was over 9%. IIMO that the "official" unemployment number is cooked to make things seem better.The Baron is correct about Ron Paul. No one stays in office for as long as he has without the grease machine. Here is the tactic as was explained to me; Ron Paul loads up bills with pork for his district and then votes against the bill. If the bill goes down he can say "I didn't vote for it." If the bill passes he can still say he didn't vote for it but the goodies never the less go back to his district.I find myself as an observer to our political system. EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN THAT REPRESENTS ME IS A DEMOCRAT. All the way from my town councilman through the county, state and federal level. Every last one! Certainly on the local and state level we will absolutely get more of the same; which in the case of New York is impending financial doom. There doesn't seem to be anyway to stop it. The majority of people I know have their own little deal cut with the public purse and are willing to ride this gravy train to the bitter end.

There is some similarity between this article by the Baron about the situation in the USA, and the article of yesterday by Mr. Weston about the situation in the UK. Mr. Weston mentioned Samuel Huntingdon's "Clash of civilizations". In this book Huntingdon refers to the dying of civilizations and the lack of concern amongst their native people, due to what he terms the "Illusion of Permanency".I think this lack of concern is due to other factors as well. Many Western nations cannot find their way and place in an ever more globalizing world with globalizing organizations and tendencies. There is some feeling of uneasiness, with the result of either adaptation orindifference. Especially countries like the USA, UK, France and Germany are also war-weary and hope for the permancency of the freedom obtained by their colossal sacrifices in the past. Patriotism and fighting-spirit for their own identity seem to be atavistic qualities, unnecessary and even dangerous in this time. Mass-democracy with its modern technical means has equalized public opinion and education, and has made them subject to simple, fashionable ideas. This has already been foreseen for America by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th century. Moreover, today, the Christian faith is not anymore the powerful social force it used to be before. There is some mental vacuum, perhaps waiting for being filled up with some more substance, like the Roman Empire during its decline was ripe for the reception of the Christian faith. Penseur

Friends of mine have been asking who I'd vote for, and I simply say 'None'.

It's about ideas, not about persons, and tactical voting for, say, Romney, for the reason that he can defeat Obama, leads us nowhere.

I like Ron Paul, for he focuses relentlessly on one of the greatest problems on the planet, the Federal Reserve. But on the other hand he misunderstands many other issues, thus he probably wouldn't be able to draw my vote, in case I had one.

The politicians just follow the votes of a populace that is indoctrinated by these institutions and media.

That is why the pollies have coalesced around the New Left Zeitgeist.

The battle needs to be focused there.

Even if you elect Republicans of Conservative bent to one degree or another.....you still have the bureacracies full of Leftwing drones and functionaries. A few political appointees on the top isnt going to do much to change the systemic problem. You have to dominate the cultural institutions, media and education system....to change things from the ground up....to shift the polity itself and the majority of individuals who enter the institutions.

One of those very important institutions is the judicary. In the US it is imperative that we replace another radical Leftinger like Ruth Bader Ginsberg with a Thomas, Scalia, or Alito....we already have the Chief Justice spot Roberts to influence the court by picking the cases it will address.

One man and one election isnt going to be enough to stem the tide. This is going to be a long slog.

Public Unions must be disempowered as well...as they form a drain on resources which are recycled in the Leftist power complex....public money taken from conservatives, given to Leftwingers, which finds its way in the election coffers of Leftist pollies.

The main reason for voting Republican no matter which weak candidate gets the nomination is to keep the Supreme Court from being changed into a rubber stamp for extreme leftist policies. If Obama gets to pick one or two more Supremes, the USA will not be able to recover even if a second Reagan came along. The leftist tattering of the Constitution would be too far gone and permanent. Conservatives who lose sight of this crucial disaster in the making are part of the problem. Our leaders may be weak, but we conservatives must not take our eye off the ball of the Supreme Court.

Regarding immigration, the US birthrate is at an all-time low (the lowest it has ever been since recorded information was available) at 2.06%. To sustain a population, a country needs a birthrate of at least 2.11%. The vacuum will only be filled by immigrants, and I would DEFINITELY prefer Christian immigrants from south of the border than Mohammedan ones. Think about that before your next anti-immigration rant.

I am inclined to the view that there is no longer a realistic possibility of averting the collapse of the existing governments and their fiat currencies.

And once the fiat currency system has collapsed, there will not be political recourse to democracy as it has come to be understood in modern times in the West.

But, I also believe that the values of Western Civilization, emphasizing the dignity of the individual human being as having an essential degree of control over and responsibility for personal actions and destiny, are more than just fine platitudes. The triumphs and enormous wealth and technical advances of the West did not come from nowhere. They ultimately sprang from the actions of individual people who regarded themselves as being the authors of their own future while confronting the real difficulties and barriers to total autonomy that exist in reality.

As the centralized regimes imposed by ideologically confused and reality-averse narcissists and solipsists collapse into irrelevance, they leave in their wake a world in which those who seek to hide from their own ultimate responsibility will have no refuge. No, it will not be a picnic for anyone just because they happen to subscribe to a philosophy of 'rugged individualism' or whatever.

But those that believe in their own responsibility for themselves and are willing to deal with the world as it is rather than as they would wish it to be will prosper. And those who have fattened themselves with reliance on the perpetual generosity of the government will discover that they no longer can rely on the armed goons of the state to rob others for them.

Some will choose to attempt their robbery in person, but without the threat of police retaliation against those that resist them, they will soon discover that it is not so easy (or long) a life as before. Those who abandon a life of plunder and seek to find ways to earn their keep will find themselves running behind those who always accepted that they would have to produce something of value to enjoy it.

There is a future to prepare against even after the inevitable collapse of socialism. And the more people prepared for it, the better.

I think that the Churches are the natural alternative political structure which will still be standing after any serious political-economic collapse.

There are many cases where we can see that in the past, starting with the Fall of the Roman Order....but many others as well, plus the Judaic and other religious traditions have similar instances in their histories....including the Fall of Arab Authoritarian regimes currently.